Framerates above 60 fps

[Underseer]

Does any gamer actually give a shit about vsync or G-sync monitors capable of displaying more than 60 fps?

I've lived without ever seeing more than 60 fps for years now, and I can't say that I ever felt that I was missing out on something.

It seems to me that all the fuss about getting more than 60 at 1080, 1400, or 2080 on a game is blowing a lot of expense and horsepower at something that is barely noticeable. Maybe I'm just an aging curmudgeon here, but it seems that people are spending more money than they need to on monitors and GPUs to live in the land of diminishing returns.

Who wants to blow $1200 on a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti to get 120-144 frames per second on a 4k freesync/G-sync monitor that cost as much or more than the GPU?

I'm thinking about getting a new monitor and desktop system, and the 60 FPS 4K monitors are a heck of a lot cheaper. An RTX 2080 or a 1080 Ti is also a heckuvalot cheaper than an RTX 2080 Ti.

 

[bilby]

I don't think it's physiologically possible to see the difference between 50Hz and any faster framerate.

It's also impossible for the human eye to resolve the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions, unless the monitor is very large, or very close. High resolution may be useful for gamers, who tend to sit much closer to the screen than TV viewers; But to a great extent, this is ofset by the use of much smaller screens in most cases.

A lot of audiovisual technology has reached the point where the human being is the limiting factor in increasing quality; At that point, further enhancement is purely a placebo.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Agreed, but OLED blacks are vastly superior. Just a side note.

 

[steve_bank]

Video quality is in the eye of the beholder. I designed digital video systems included a video panel controller.

When setting parameters like RGB when set to what the standard says when a group of us sat watching movies to evaluate it we ended up setting RGB off typical.

The main effect frame rate has on quality is perception of motion. A higher frame rate can potentially improve fast action video.

You have to watch a lot of video to actually see the difference.

 

[steve_bank]

Adding the 50/60hz mains frequencies provided a stable frequency reference in early TV.

 

[phands]

I don't think it's physiologically possible to see the difference between 50Hz and any faster framerate.

It's also impossible for the human eye to resolve the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions, unless the monitor is very large, or very close. High resolution may be useful for gamers, who tend to sit much closer to the screen than TV viewers; But to a great extent, this is ofset by the use of much smaller screens in most cases.

A lot of audiovisual technology has reached the point where the human being is the limiting factor in increasing quality; At that point, further enhancement is purely a placebo.

Not really true. I designed digital TV chips a while back. The 60Hz vs 50Hz thing is a big deal. Even 120 vs 144 Hz is noticed by most people. 4K is noticeably better than HD - I have 4 4k monitors on my desk and I get way less headaches. I don't game, but for other purposes, the higher the res, the better.

 

[steve_bank]

I don't think it's physiologically possible to see the difference between 50Hz and any faster framerate.

It's also impossible for the human eye to resolve the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions, unless the monitor is very large, or very close. High resolution may be useful for gamers, who tend to sit much closer to the screen than TV viewers; But to a great extent, this is ofset by the use of much smaller screens in most cases.

A lot of audiovisual technology has reached the point where the human being is the limiting factor in increasing quality; At that point, further enhancement is purely a placebo.

Not really true. I designed digital TV chips a while back. The 60Hz vs 50Hz thing is a big deal. Even 120 vs 144 Hz is noticed by most people. 4K is noticeably better than HD - I have 4 4k monitors on my desk and I get way less headaches. I don't game, but for other purposes, the higher the res, the better.

Which chip?

 

[Beer With Straw]

Does any gamer actually give a shit about vsync or G-sync monitors capable of displaying more than 60 fps?

I've lived without ever seeing more than 60 fps for years now, and I can't say that I ever felt that I was missing out on something.

It seems to me that all the fuss about getting more than 60 at 1080, 1400, or 2080 on a game is blowing a lot of expense and horsepower at something that is barely noticeable. Maybe I'm just an aging curmudgeon here, but it seems that people are spending more money than they need to on monitors and GPUs to live in the land of diminishing returns.

Who wants to blow $1200 on a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti to get 120-144 frames per second on a 4k freesync/G-sync monitor that cost as much or more than the GPU?

I'm thinking about getting a new monitor and desktop system, and the 60 FPS 4K monitors are a heck of a lot cheaper. An RTX 2080 or a 1080 Ti is also a heckuvalot cheaper than an RTX 2080 Ti.

Don't know about game engines in the now. (The Quake engine developed into the Quake II engine and so forth...) But I think V-sync had an affect on your movement.

But still not totally sure, meh.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Some people want this because they can get it. The same sort who would buy a 750 hp supercar capable of doing 200 MPH.

 

[steve_bank]

Penis length grows in proportion to the diagonal length of the video display.

 

[phands]

I don't think it's physiologically possible to see the difference between 50Hz and any faster framerate.

It's also impossible for the human eye to resolve the difference between 1080p and higher resolutions, unless the monitor is very large, or very close. High resolution may be useful for gamers, who tend to sit much closer to the screen than TV viewers; But to a great extent, this is ofset by the use of much smaller screens in most cases.

A lot of audiovisual technology has reached the point where the human being is the limiting factor in increasing quality; At that point, further enhancement is purely a placebo.

Not really true. I designed digital TV chips a while back. The 60Hz vs 50Hz thing is a big deal. Even 120 vs 144 Hz is noticed by most people. 4K is noticeably better than HD - I have 4 4k monitors on my desk and I get way less headaches. I don't game, but for other purposes, the higher the res, the better.

Which chip?

It was a full-custom internal device for ITT in Germany.

 

[steve_bank]

Which chip?

It was a full-custom internal device for ITT in Germany.

Interesting. Sounds like we may have had similar paths.

 

[phands]

Which chip?

It was a full-custom internal device for ITT in Germany.

Interesting. Sounds like we may have had similar paths.

I worked for Motorola in Scotland post-graduation, went to Germany to be a designer of those digital TV chips. Then back to UK to do research on chips for Naval Sonar processing based around Transputer chipsets. Worked for ST in Gate Array ASICs, then ES2 full custom. Then got involved in EDA (worked for Mentor, Cadence and Synopsys) where I did chip design for Imagination Technology (now Videologic) on the graphics engine for the Sega Dreamcast, much SoC work for Philips, Ericsson, Nokia and others, before joining Google.

 

[steve_bank]

Interesting. Sounds like we may have had similar paths.

I worked for Motorola in Scotland post-graduation, went to Germany to be a designer of those digital TV chips. Then back to UK to do research on chips for Naval Sonar processing based around Transputer chipsets. Worked for ST in Gate Array ASICs, then ES2 full custom. Then got involved in EDA (worked for Mentor, Cadence and Synopsys) where I did chip design for Imagination Technology (now Videologic) on the graphics engine for the Sega Dreamcast, much SoC work for Philips, Ericsson, Nokia and others, before joining Google.

Sounds good. I have a personal license for Cadenced Orcad/Allegro. Ahh yes Mentor schematic capture, no fond memories there. I did a project for a customer converting 20 pages of a RADAR system schematic to Orcad by hand.

I was not a chip designer. I used FPGAS and picked up a project debugging, simulating, and modifying an ASIC. I was a Jack of all trades and master of none working in different areas. I was working on an audio business when my health caught up with me about 3 years ago now.

I worked for a company that did carom audio video for wealthy jet owners. We did the personal 747 of the grand pooh ba of Bahrain.

I designed a digital video cross point switch and video distribution system for SMPTE digital serial video. And a panel controller. By now it has all been replaced by warless..

 

[Underseer]

Some people want this because they can get it. The same sort who would buy a 750 hp supercar capable of doing 200 MPH.

Personally, I was skeptical of 4K TVs when they first came out, but I have to admit that I can definitely see the difference between 1080p and 4K.

However, the price difference between 60Hz and 144Hz is much greater than the price difference between 1080p and 2160p. Even assuming the human eye can tell the difference, the return just doesn't seem worth the cost. If you want 4K 144Hz with 10-bit color, you're talking about a monitor that costs more than some used cars, meanwhile I was able to get a decent 28" 4K 60Hz monitor (no idea about the color) for $250 at the local big box store.

It just seems like diminishing returns for purely epeen purposes.